Searching for the nik Operon: How a Ligand-Responsive
Transcription Factor Hunts for Its DNA Binding Site
The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share
how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
Citation
Phillips, Christine M., Collin M. Stultz, and Catherine L. Drennan.
“Searching for the Nik Operon: How a Ligand-Responsive
Transcription Factor Hunts for Its DNA Binding Site.”
Biochemistry 49.36 (2010) : 7757-7763. © 2010 American
Chemical Society
As Published
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/bi100947k
Publisher
American Chemical Society
Version
Final published version
Accessed
Thu May 26 11:22:49 EDT 2016
Citable Link
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/64716
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy
and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the
publisher's site for terms of use.
Detailed Terms
Biochemistry 2010, 49, 7757–7763 7757
DOI: 10.1021/bi100947k
)
Searching for the nik Operon: How a Ligand-Responsive Transcription Factor
Hunts for Its DNA Binding Site†
Christine M. Phillips,‡,§ Collin M. Stultz,§,^,@ and Catherine L. Drennan*,‡,
Department of Chemistry, §Research Laboratory of Electronics, Department of Biology, ^Department of Electrical Engineering and
Computer Science, and @Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, and #Howard Hughes Medical Institute
)
‡
,#
Received June 11, 2010; Revised Manuscript Received August 12, 2010
ABSTRACT:
Transcription factors regulate a wide variety of genes in the cell and play a crucial role in
maintaining cellular homeostasis. A major unresolved issue is how transcription factors find their specific
DNA binding sequence in the vast expanse of the cell and how they do so at rates that appear faster than the
diffusion limit. Here, we relate an atomic-detail model that has been developed to describe the transcription
factor NikR’s mechanism of DNA binding to the broader theories of how transcription factors find their
binding sites on DNA. NikR is the nickel regulatory transcription factor for many bacteria, and NikR from
Escherichia coli is one of the best studied ligand-mediated transcription factors. For the E. coli NikR protein,
there is a wide variety of structural, biochemical, and computational studies that provide significant insight
into the NikR-DNA binding mechanism. We find that the two models, the atomic-level model for E. coli
NikR and the cellular model for transcription factors in general, are in agreement, and the details laid out by
the NikR system may lend additional credence to the current models for transcription factors searching
for DNA.
Many cellular processes are regulated at the transcriptional
level by proteins that can bind DNA and prevent or facilitate
RNA polymerase binding to and transcribing DNA into mRNA.
Transcription factors respond to a change in the cellular environment by binding or unbinding from DNA, thus altering the
availability of a given gene for transcription. There are two main
types of transcription factors: those regulated by a change in their
own concentration that, in turn, changes the percentage of
potential DNA sites having that transcription factor bound
and those whose concentration remains more or less constant
but whose affinity for DNA is regulated by a ligand binding
mechanism. For ligand-binding transcription factors, the binding
or dissociation of some ligand (small molecule, metal ion, etc.)
alters the protein’s affinity for DNA. This review considers a
ligand-binding transcription factor from Escherichia coli, NikR,1
and how proposed mechanisms for NikR binding to DNA relate
to current theories of how transcription factors find their specific
DNA binding sites in the vast expanse of the genome.
The E. coli nickel regulatory protein, NikR, is a homotetrameric protein with a central metal binding domain (MBD) and
two bordering dimeric ribbon-helix-helix (RHH) DNA binding domains (Figure 1a) (1). The MBD is a regulatory domain
and the site of stoichiometric nickel binding (Figure 1b), while the
dimeric RHH domains are responsible for making sequencespecific contacts with DNA (Figure 1c). Four nickel ions bind the
†
This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant
GM69857 to C.L.D
*To whom correspondence should be addressed: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Building 68-680, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge,
MA 02139. Phone: (617) 253-5622. Fax: (617) 258-7847. E-mail: cdrennan@
mit.edu.
1
Abbreviations: NikR, nickel regulatory protein; MBD, metal binding domain; RHH, ribbon-helix-helix.
NikR tetramer at strictly conserved square-planar sites in the
MBD (Figure 1b), with a measured dissociation constant in the
picomolar range (2, 3). Nickel binding to these sites induces highaffinity binding of NikR to the nik operon, with a nanomolar
dissociation constant (2, 4), preventing the transcription of the
nickel-specific uptake transporter NikABCDE and thereby limiting the amount of additional nickel entering the cell (5, 6).
Interestingly, in the presence of an excess of stoichiometric nickel,
the affinity of NikR for DNA increases, with the dissociation
constant falling into the picomolar range (2, 4). Unlike stoichiometric nickel, however, excess nickel ions have a lower affinity for
NikR, with dissociation constants in the micro- or millimolar
range (2, 4). Excess or low-affinity nickel ions bind to nonconserved sites on the surface of the NikR protein (Figure 2) (7).
Finally, NikR also has a binding site for a non-nickel metal. In
addition to stoichiometric nickel, NikR requires potassium to
bind to DNA with an apparent binding affinity of potassium for
Ni2þ-bound NikR of e1 mM (8). A potassium binding site is
located at the interface of the MBD and the RHH domain (9, 10)
(Figures 1c and 3). In addition to metal binding, the E. coli NikR
protein has been extensively studied in terms of its DNA binding
properties (2, 4, 6, 8, 11) and its structural states (1, 7, 10, 12). In
fact, E. coli NikR is one of the few ligand-mediated transcription
factors for which structures in all the various liganded states are
known: apo NikR (Figure 1a), Ni2þ-bound NikR (Figure 1b),
and NikR-DNA complex (Figure 1c) (1, 10). Although the
NikR from Helicobacter pylori has been the subject of several
recent studies (13-19), the series of structures mentioned above is
not available for this protein, making E. coli NikR our model
system of choice. While some aspects of NikR function are still
controversial (20, 21), here we will consider only the well-established features as we relate what we have learned about E. coli
r 2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 08/16/2010
pubs.acs.org/Biochemistry
7758
Biochemistry, Vol. 49, No. 36, 2010
Phillips et al.
FIGURE 1: Crystal structures of full-length E. coli NikR. (a) Apo-NikR structure with disordered R3 helices in an “open” conformation. (b) Ni2þ-
bound NikR in an open conformation with ordered R3 helices and nickel ions represented as green spheres and an inset of the high-affinity nickel
site (green spheres). (c) NikR-DNA complex with NikR in a “down-cis” conformation with potassium ions (purple spheres) bound between the
MBD and RHH domains and an inset view of the potassium site. The NikR-DNA complex is shown in surface representation to illustrate
contacts between NikR and DNA, and the DNA motif responsible for specific recognition by NikR is indicated.
NikR to the general question of how ligand-mediated transcriptional regulation is achieved at the molecular level.
Of key interest is the mechanism by which ligand-mediated
transcription factors respond to their ligands and bind DNA,
preventing transcription. Outlined in Figure 4a is a general
simplistic mechanism. In this simple scheme, adapted for the
NikR case, the binding of the ligand (nickel) induces (1) a change
in the electrostatic potential of the protein (i.e., making the
overall net charge of the protein more positive) and/or (2) a
conformational change in the protein that leads to the formation
of a structure that is complementary to the nik operon. Both of
these effects would, in principle, explain the increased affinity
of NikR for DNA in the presence of nickel. However, the wealth
of research on the NikR system suggests that the involvement of
metal ions in the regulation of NikR binding to DNA is
considerably more complicated than the mechanism outlined in
Figure 4a.
The more detailed mechanism shown in Figure 4b arises
from an analysis of several crystal structures of E. coli NikR
that are now available (apo, Ni2þ-bound, DNA-bound, and with
various transition metals bound) in conjunction with biochemical
and computational work on the system (1-4, 6, 9-12, 22, 23).
These data argue that the first step in Ni2þ-induced NikRDNA binding is the crystallographically observed (Figure 1a,b)
ordering of the R3 helices and their associated loops following stoichiometric binding of Ni2þ to the high-affinity sites
(R3 helices and associated loops are represented by ovals in
Figure 4b) (1, 12). When ordered, crystallographic data show that
these R3-associated loops can make nonspecific hydrogen bonding contacts with the DNA phosphate backbone (Figures 1c and
3, black dashed lines), presumably helping to localize NikR on
DNA (10). High-affinity binding of NikR to its operator DNA
can be achieved when the RHH domains adopt a structurally
observed down-cis conformation (Figure 1c) that enables these
domains to make site-specific contacts with nucleotides in the
major grooves at the DNA binding sites (Figure 3, red dashed
lines) (9, 10). This down-cis conformation of NikR can be further
stabilized by potassium binding to the interface between the
MBD and RHH domains (Figure 3, cyan dashed lines, and
Figure 4b, where the potassium is shown as a gray sphere).
Current Topic/Perspective
Biochemistry, Vol. 49, No. 36, 2010
7759
FIGURE 2: Nickel binding sites of NikR. (a) NikR with nickel ions bound to high-affinity and low-affinity nickel sites. (b) NikR-DNA complex
with nickel ions bound to both high-affinity and low-affinity nickel sites. Nickels in high-affinity nickel sites are shown as green spheres, and lowaffinity nickel ions are colored blue, with potassium ions colored purple.
The mechanism in panel a of Figure 4 differs from that in panel
b in several significant ways. First, the ligand (nickel) exerts its
effect on the regulatory domain (MBD), not the DNA binding
domain (RHH domain). This variation in mechanism is supported by crystallographic data (1, 10), which show the only
significant conformational change upon nickel binding is the
ordering of the R3 helix and its accompanying loop of the
MBD, while the RHH domains remain in open conformations
(Figure 1b). In addition, both crystallographic and biochemical
data show a correlation between the conformation of the R3 helix
and DNA binding properties (1, 4, 10, 12). Second, Figure 4b
depicts a mechanism that is a requisite multistep process as nickel
binding alone does not directly invoke the down-cis NikR
conformation. Third, the mechanism in Figure 4b invokes a role
for an abundant cellular cation, potassium, in serving to stabilize
the down-cis NikR conformation, consistent with the NikRDNA crystal structure (Figure 1c) as well as biochemical data
(8-10). Importantly, Figure 4b shows nickel binding to NikR
before potassium. Recent data suggest that nickel binding to
NikR increases its affinity for potassium (8). Preliminary metal
analysis by ICP-AES shows that under the same conditions in
which potassium is readily removed from apo-NikR, Ni2þbound NikR retains a significant amount. This finding is also
consistent with the X-ray structure, which reveals an extended
hydrogen bonding network around the potassium site that is only
fully formed in the presence of stoichiometric nickel when the R3
helix and its accompanying loop are ordered (Figure 3). Thus, it is
easy to rationalize from the structure how nickel binding to NikR
could promote the binding of potassium.
The scheme in Figure 4b can be modified to include an
additional step in which the excess or low-affinity nickel binds
to NikR (Figure 4c). In vitro, excess nickel increases the affinity
of NikR for DNA (2, 4), presumably through an electrostatic
mechanism. Crystallographic data show that excess nickel binds
to similar sites on the surface of the NikR protein regardless of
whether NikR is free or bound to a piece of its operator DNA
(Figure 2a,b) (7, 10). Although it is not known if excess or lowaffinity nickel plays a role in vivo, here we depict the possibility
that excess nickel ions could bind to either free or bound NikR,
serving to enhance NikR’s affinity for the nik operon.
While the mechanisms shown in Figure 4 address the molecular changes that must occur for NikR to bind DNA, we have not
yet considered how these regulatory mechanisms relate to the
“search” NikR would have to undertake to find the nik operon. It
is interesting to consider how our mechanisms shown in panels b
and c of Figure 4 relate to current theories of how transcription
factors find their binding sites on DNA. It was noted as early as
1970 by Riggs and co-workers that transcription factors can find
their binding sites with surprising efficiency in vivo (24). Specifically, it was documented that the LacI repressor could find its
7760
Biochemistry, Vol. 49, No. 36, 2010
Phillips et al.
FIGURE 3: Potassium site that links an extended H-bonding network between NikR and DNA. The MBD is colored green, and the RHH domains
are colored purple. Nonspecific DNA contacts are shown as black dashed lines; hydrogen bonds within the protein linked to the potassium site are
represented by cyan dashed lines, and specific contacts between NikR and DNA are indicated between the ribbons of the RHH domains and
nucleotide residues as dashed red lines. Residues involved in hydrogen bonding with DNA or the hydrogen bonding network connecting the
potassium site to the DNA are shown as sticks with labels. Nitrogens are colored blue, oxygens red, phosphorus orange, and carbon atoms are
colored by the region of the structure.
FIGURE 4: Schemes illustrating the proposed mechanism for the ligand (nickel)-induced transcription factor (NikR) binding to DNA. (a) Simple,
incorrect model for depicting the mechanism described for most ligand-binding transcription factors. (b) Alternate model for NikR-DNA
binding indicating the importance of the high-affinity nickel ions in ordering the central R3 helices. (c) Expansion of the model shown in panel b,
which considers the role that excess nickel ions may play in enhancing NikR’s affinity for DNA by binding NikR either before or after it has bound
to DNA. The tetrameric metal binding domain is represented with a gray rectangle. The dimeric ribbon-helix-helix domains are represented as
triangles. The DNA is represented as a ladder. Nickel ions are represented as black circles. Potassium ions are represented as gray circles. R3 helices
are represented as ovals.
binding site on DNA at a rate of ∼1010 M-1 s-1, which is faster
than the diffusion limit in three dimensions, 108 M-1 s-1 (24). To
explain this phenomenon, the dimensionality of the search was
proposed to vary with time (25, 26). Such variation in search
dimensionality could be achieved if the protein spent some
amount of time performing a one-dimensional search by sliding
along the DNA in addition to some amount of time diffusing
around the cell in a three-dimensional search (24-27). This
sliding-diffusion model has been supported by a variety of
biochemical and single-molecule experiments (28-38).
Recently, it has been suggested that DNA-bound sliding must
incur little energetic penalty for this sliding-diffusion mechanism
to account for the biologically observed rates at which transcription factors can find their appropriate binding sites on DNA (39).
It follows that sliding must be associated with a weak affinity
for DNA, while recognition of a specific operon requires the
transcription factor to bind its complementary nucleic acid
sequence with high affinity. A possible mechanism to account
for the paradox of both weak and strong DNA binding is that the
protein must have at least two distinct conformational states that
Current Topic/Perspective
Biochemistry, Vol. 49, No. 36, 2010
7761
FIGURE 5: Proposed model for NikR’s search for the nik operon on DNA. The RHH domains are represented as gray triangles. The MBD is
represented as a rectangle. R3 helices are represented as ovals. Nickel ions are represented as black circles and potassium ions as gray circles. DNA
is represented as a black double helix. The two DNA sites highlighted in gray represent the two half-sites just upstream of the nik operon to which
NikR specifically binds in the cell to repress the transcription of nikABCDE, thus indicating the site where NikR has the highest affinity for DNA.
can bind DNA with different affinities (39). The weakly bound or
“nonspecific binding” conformation binds different DNA sequences
all with low affinity and is therefore impartial with respect to the
precise DNA sequence. The second, “specific binding” conformation binds only the complementary DNA sequence with high
affinity. In this model, the protein is able to sample both
conformations as it continues its search until it finds its DNA
binding site.
The wealth of data arising from crystallographic, biochemical,
and computational studies on E. coli NikR supports a slidingdiffusion mechanism that employs at least three distinct NikR
conformers, with each conformer having a different affinity for
the nik operon (Figure 5). When no metal is bound to NikR, the
protein can freely diffuse with no or little affinity [less than
micromolar affinity (2)] for DNA. Once nickel ions bind to NikR,
the R3 helices and loops preceding them become ordered, and this
allows the protein to interact with DNA through nonspecific
hydrogen bonds to backbone phosphate groups (Figure 3, black
dashed lines). In this sense, the one-dimensional search along the
DNA sequence does not begin until nickel ions bind at highaffinity nickel sites on NikR. However, because nickel binding is
not sufficient to induce the RHH domains to adopt a down-cis
conformation, the presence of nickel does not ensure that the
protein will recognize the specific nucleic acid sequence in the
major groove of DNA. The nickel-bound structure of NikR with
the RHH domains in an open conformation therefore represents a
nonspecific binding conformation of NikR, whose localization on
DNA is sequence-independent (Figure 5). While we do not have a
good experimental number for the affinity of such a nonspecific
interaction between Ni2þ-bound NikR and DNA, because it is
below the detection level of the standard gel shift assay (4, 8), an
estimate for the nonspecific DNA affinity can be obtained from
base substitution experiments in which bases in the nik operon
binding motif are individually substituted. Individual mutations
can lead to significant reductions in affinity (>1000-fold) (6).
Crystallographic studies of Ni2þ-bound NikR suggest that the
RHH domains remain flexible when stoichiometric Ni2þ is
bound at the high-affinity sites (10). Consequently, it is likely
that thermal fluctuations cause these domains to sample a variety
of orientations relative to the MBD in the nonspecific binding
conformation. Fluctuations that cause the RHH domains to
adopt a down-cis conformation enable the protein to “see” the
precise nucleic acid sequence in the major groove. Therefore, as
the protein slides along DNA, it can in principle sample different
nucleic acid sequences along the DNA chain (Figure 5). Sampling
of down-cis conformations is enhanced during sliding because
potassium, which is present at a millimolar concentration in the
cell (40), binds at a site between the RHH domain and MBD and
establishes a network of hydrogen bonds that involves additional
interactions between the RHH domain and the phosphate backbone (Figure 3, cyan dashed lines). The hydrogen bonding
network organized by potassium ion binding contains a number
of fully conserved residues, including E30, D34, and R33, any of
whose mutagenesis abrogates DNA binding (Figure 3) (8, 10).
Aspartic acid 34 coordinates the potassium ion in a bidentate
fashion; E30 has a monodentate coordination to potassium, and
the second oxygen participates in a hydrogen bonding network
with conserved R33 (Figure 3). Arginine 33 then makes hydrogen
bonds to the DNA phosphate backbone and participates in the
ordering of the hydrogen bonding networks contacting DNA in
both the MBD and RHH regions (Figure 3). Thus, this potassium site is well positioned to play a key role in organizing or
maintaining a complex hydrogen bonding network between both
domains of NikR and DNA that could stabilize the down-cis
NikR conformation.
Crystallographic and biochemical data taken together suggest
that a number of factors are required for the transcription factor
to recognize its operon with high affinity: (1) the formation of
nonspecific hydrogen bonds between the DNA phosphate backbone and both the MBD and RHH domain [note that RHH
domains have no measurable affinity for DNA in absence of the
MBD (6)], (2) binding of potassium to the secondary site in an
octahedral geometry (8-10), and (3) hydrogen bonds between
the RHH domain and specific nucleic acid bases in the operon (6, 10). When the RHH domains adopt a down-cis conformation, residues of these domains are poised to make hydrogen
bonds with the nucleic acids in the DNA major groove that are
known to be required for high-affinity binding (6, 10). Therefore,
this down-cis conformation of NikR corresponds to a specific
binding conformation that can recognize and bind the nik operon
with the measured “high affinity” or nanomolar dissociation
constant (2, 4) (Figure 5). However, a down-cis conformation of
the protein at sites other than the nik operon corresponds to
metastable states that would be expected to have short lifespans
relative to that of the state where the protein is bound at its
operon, with affinities decreased by an estimated 1000-fold for
even one mistake in the operon binding motif (6). When the
protein finds the correct nucleic acid sequence, the required
specific interactions are formed and high-affinity binding is
achieved (Figures 1 and 3).
To further illustrate these concepts, we can consider a putative
energy landscape that describes the energy of different bound
7762
Phillips et al.
Biochemistry, Vol. 49, No. 36, 2010
FIGURE 6: Hypothetical energy landscape for NikR when bound to DNA. In panel (a), both the orientation of the RHH domains and the position
on DNA are considered. When the RHH domains are in the down-cis position and NikR is at the correct DNA binding sequence, there is an
energy minimum (blue well). As the RHH domains assume a more “out” position, the energy landscape becomes more rugged with many shallow
minima. (b) Cross section of the energy landscape, corresponding to the extreme orientation of the RHH domains in the nonspecific or up-cis
DNA binding state of NikR. (c) Different cross section of the energy landscape corresponding to an orientation in which the RHH domains adopt
the specific or down-cis DNA binding state of NikR. Four energy minima are shown for the two DNA binding modes and represent four different
DNA subsequences, i.e., four different sites on the DNA polymer.
states of NikR on DNA (Figure 6). The landscape in Figure 6a
depicts a hypothetical energy landscape as a function of RHH
domain orientation and the general position of NikR on DNA.
The hypothetical landscape arises from a synthesis of existing
theoretical and experimental data and assumes that the sliding
and diffusing paradigm holds. The global energy minimum
corresponds to NikR adopting a down-cis conformation at the
correct DNA binding site (Figure 6a, blue well). By contrast,
when NikR adopts an “open” or “up-cis” conformation, it can
form hydrogen bonds only with the phosphate backbone of the
DNA chain and therefore cannot distinguish between sequence
differences in the DNA itself. This corresponds to a relatively
rugged region of the energy landscape populated by many local
energy minima that are separated by small energy barriers
(Figure 6b). Each energy minimum corresponds to a different
bound conformation of the protein, with NikR only hydrogen
bonding to the phosphate backbone. Barriers on the energy
surface arise because NikR needs to break hydrogen bonds with
the phosphate backbone to “slide” to a new position on the
DNA. The down-cis conformation of NikR is a “specific” DNA
binding conformation in which the RHH domains are sampling
the DNA sequence (Figure 6c).
We could adapt the energy landscape in Figure 6a to consider the
in vitro observation that the affinity of NikR for DNA is increased
in the presence of excess nickel binding by simply increasing the
depth of each of the wells on the landscape. Because excess nickel
can bind to both free and bound NikR, one can imagine excess
nickel ions being able to stabilize both the nonspecific and specific
conformations of the NikR-DNA complex via favorable electrostatic interactions between the more positively charged NikR
molecule and the negatively charged DNA. While stabilization of
the nonspecific conformation of NikR bound to DNA may worsen
the efficiency of the search, it would extend the lifetime of the bound
NikR conformation until the nickel stress is over.
The ideas presented here represent a synthesis of experimental,
theoretical, and computational data on the NikR system, which
are consistent with NikR exploiting a sliding-diffusion mechanism to find its operon. An efficient search for the correct DNA
sequence is achieved because NikR uses both a nonspecific, lowaffinity, conformation to move along the DNA chain and a
specific, high-affinity, conformation to recognize and bind to the
operon. Thus, while one can propose a simplistic model for how
NikR binding to DNA could be regulated by nickel (Figure 4a),
this model fails when one considers the features needed for
efficient binding site searching, perhaps explaining the need for a
more complex mechanism of action (Figure 4b,c). Although the
model we propose for NikR binding to DNA in panels b and c of
Figure 4 and Figure 5 may not include all caveats of the NikR
system, it does illustrate that ligand-binding transcription factors
can have very complicated mechanisms of regulation. In addition, this review opens the door for further studies to be
conducted on the NikR system and other systems, testing the
theories and comparisons we suggest here and extrapolating these
ideas to a broader array of DNA binding proteins.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank Charles Fischer for his help with Figure 6.
REFERENCES
1. Schreiter, E. R., Sintchak, M. D., Guo, Y., Chivers, P. T., Sauer,
R. T., and Drennan, C. L. (2003) Crystal structure of nickel-responsive transcription factor NikR. Nat. Struct. Biol. 10, 794–799.
2. Chivers, P. T., and Sauer, R. T. (2002) NikR Repressor: High-Affinity
Nickel Binding to the C-Terminal Domain Regulates Binding to
Operator DNA. Chem. Biol. 9, 1141–1148.
3. Wang, S. C., Dias, A. V., Bloom, S. L., and Zamble, D. B. (2004)
Selectivity of Metal Binding and Metal-Induced Stability of Escherichia coli NikR. Biochemistry 43, 10018–10028.
4. Bloom, S. L., and Zamble, D. B. (2004) Metal-Selective DNA-Binding
Response of Escherichia coli NikR. Biochemistry 43, 10029–10038.
5. Navarro, C., Wu, L. F., and Mandrand-Berthelot, M.-A. (1993) The
nik operon of Escherichia coli encodes a periplasmic binding-proteindependent transport system for nickel. Mol. Microbiol. 9, 1181–1191.
6. Chivers, P. T., and Sauer, R. T. (2000) Regulation of high affinity
nickel uptake in bacteria. Ni2þ-dependent interaction of NikR with
wild-type and mutant operator sites. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 19735–19741.
7. Phillips, C. M., Schreiter, E. R., Stultz, C. M., and Drennan, C. L.
(2010) Structural Basis of Low Affinity Nickel Binding to the NickelResponsive Transcription Factor NikR from Escherichia coli Biochemistry 49, in press. (doi: 10.1021/bi100923j).
Current Topic/Perspective
8. Wang, S. C., Li, Y., Robinson, C. V., and Zamble, D. B. (2010)
Potassium is Critical for the Ni(II)-Responsive DNA-Binding
Activity of Escherichia coli NikR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 1506–1507.
9. Phillips, C. M., Nerenberg, P. S., Drennan, C. L., and Stultz, C. M.
(2009) Physical Basis of Metal-Binding Specificity in Escherichia coli
NikR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 10220–10228.
10. Schreiter, E. R., Wang, S. C., Zamble, D. B., and Drennan, C. L.
(2006) NikR-operator complex structure and the mechanism of
repressor activation by metal ions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
103, 13676–13681.
11. Chivers, P. T., and Sauer, R. T. (1999) NikR is a ribbon-helix-helix
DNA-binding protein. Protein Sci. 8, 2494–2500.
12. Phillips, C. M., Schreiter, E. R., Guo, Y., Wang, S. C., Zamble, D. B.,
and Drennan, C. L. (2008) Structural Basis of the Metal Specificity for
Nickel Regulatory Protein NikR. Biochemistry 47, 1938–1946.
13. Abraham, L. O., Li, Y., and Zamble, D. B. (2006) The metal- and
DNA-binding activities of Helicobacter pylori NikR. J. Inorg. Biochem. 100, 1005–1014.
14. Dian, C., Schauer, K., Kapp, U., McSweeney, S. M., Labigne, A., and
Terradot, L. (2006) Structural Basis of the Nickel Response in
Helicobacter pylori: Crystal Structures of HpNikR in Apo and
Nickel-bound States. J. Mol. Biol. 361, 715–730.
15. Dosanjh, N. S., Hammerbacher, N. A., and Michel, S. L. (2007)
Characterization of the Helicobacter pylori NikR-P(ureA) DNA
interaction: Metal ion requirements and sequence specificity. Biochemistry 46, 2520–2529.
16. Dosanjh, N. S., West, A. L., and Michel, S. L. (2009) Helicobacter
pylori NikR’s interaction with DNA: A two-tiered mode of recognition. Biochemistry 48, 527–536.
17. Ernst, F. D., Kuipers, E. J., Heijens, A., Sarwari, R., Stoof, J., Penn,
C. W., Kusters, J. G., and van Vliet, A. H. M. (2005) The NickelResponsive Regulator NikR controls Activation and Repression of
Gene Transcription in Helicobacter pylori. Infect. Immun. 73, 7252–7258.
18. Ernst, F. D., Stoof, J., Horrevoets, W. M., Kuipers, E. J., Kusters,
J. G., and van Vliet, A. H. M. (2006) NikR Mediates NickelResponsive Transcriptional Repression of the Helicobacter pylori
Outer Membrane Proteins FecA3 (HP1400) and FrpB4 (HP1512).
Infect. Immun. 74, 6821–6828.
19. Zambelli, B., Bellucci, M., Danielli, A., Scarlato, V., and Ciurli, S.
(2007) The Ni2þ binding properties of Helicobacter pylori NikR.
Chem. Commun., 3649–3651.
20. Phillips, C. M., and Drennan, C. L. (2008) Nickel Regulatory
Transcription Factor, NikR. In Handbook of Metalloproteins
(Messerschmidt, A., Ed.) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York.
21. Wang, S. C., Dias, A. V., and Zamble, D. B. (2009) The “metallospecific” response of proteins: A perspective based on the Escherichia
coli transcriptional regulator NikR. Dalton Trans., 2459–2466.
22. de Pina, K., Desjardin, V., Mandrand-Berthelot, M.-A., Giordano,
G., and Wu, L. F. (1999) Isolation and Characterization of the nikR
Gene Encoding a Nickel-Responsive Regulator in Escherichia coli. J.
Bacteriol. 181, 670–674.
23. Leitch, S., Bradley, M. J., Rowe, J. L., Chivers, P. T., and Maroney,
M. J. (2007) Nickel-Specific Response in the Transcriptional Regulator, Escherichia coli NikR. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 5085–5095.
Biochemistry, Vol. 49, No. 36, 2010
7763
24. Riggs, A. D., Bourgeoi, S., and Cohn, M. (1970) The Lac RepressorOperator Interaction. 3. Kinetic Studies. J. Mol. Bio. 53, 401–417.
25. Berg, O. G., Winter, R. B., and Vonhippel, P. H. (1981) DiffusionDriven Mechanisms of Protein Translocation on Nucleic-Acids. 1.
Models and Theory. Biochemistry 20, 6929–6948.
26. Richter, P. H., and Eigen, M. (1974) Diffusion Controlled ReactionRates in Spheroidal Geometry: Application to Repressor-Operator
Association and Membrane-Bound Enzymes. Biophys. Chem. 2, 255–
263.
27. Berg, O. G., and Blomberg, C. (1976) Association Kinetics with
Coupled Diffusional Flows: Special Application to Lac RepressorOperator System. Biophys. Chem. 4, 367–381.
28. Blainey, P. C., van Oijent, A. M., Banerjee, A., Verdine, G. L., and
Xie, X. S. (2006) A base-excision DNA-repair protein finds intrahelical lesion bases by fast sliding in contact with DNA. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 5752–5757.
29. Elf, J., Li, G. W., and Xie, X. S. (2007) Probing transcription factor
dynamics at the single-molecule level in a living cell. Science 316,
1191–1194.
30. Gorman, J., Chowdhury, A., Surtees, J. A., Shimada, J., Reichman,
D. R., Alani, E., and Greene, E. C. (2007) Dynamic basis for onedimensional DNA scanning by the mismatch repair complex Msh2Msh6. Mol. Cell 28, 359–370.
31. Gorman, J., and Greene, E. C. (2008) Visualizing one-dimensional diffusion of proteins along DNA. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 15,
768–774.
32. Gowers, D. M., Wilson, G. G., and Halford, S. E. (2005) Measurement of the contributions of 1D and 3D pathways to the translocation
of a protein along DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 15883–
15888.
33. Kim, J. G., Takeda, Y., Matthews, B. W., and Anderson, W. F. (1987)
Kinetic Studies on Cro Repressor Operator DNA Interaction. J. Mol.
Biol. 196, 149–158.
34. McKinney, K., Mattia, M., Gottifredi, V., and Prives, C. (2004) p53
linear diffusion along DNA requires its C terminus. Mol. Cell 16, 413–
424.
35. Winter, R. B., Berg, O. G., and Vonhippel, P. H. (1981) DiffusionDriven Mechanisms of Protein Translocation on Nucleic Acids. 3.
The Escherichia coli Lac Repressor-Operator Interaction: Kinetic
Measurements and Conclusions. Biochemistry 20, 6961–6977.
36. Graneli, A., Yeykal, C. C., Robertson, R. B., and Greene, E. C. (2006)
Long-distance lateral diffusion of human Rad51 on double-stranded
DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 1221–1226.
37. Wang, Y. M., Austin, R. H., and Cox, E. C. (2006) Single molecule
measurements of repressor protein 1D diffusion on DNA. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 97, 048302.
38. Tafvizi, A., Huang, F., Leith, J. S., Fersht, A. R., Mirny, L. A., and
van Oijen, A. M. (2008) Tumor suppressor p53 slides on DNA with
low friction and high stability. Biophys. J. 95, L1–L3.
39. Slutsky, M., and Mirny, L. A. (2004) Kinetics of protein-DNA
interaction: Facilitated target location in sequence-dependent potential. Biophys. J. 87, 4021–4035.
40. Epstein, W., and Schultz, S. G. (1966) Cation transport in Escherichia
coli. VI. K exchange. J. Gen. Physiol. 49, 469–481.